Political engagement for brand marketing: To be or not to be
Considering the amount of time, resource and money, brands invest , it becomes pertinent to look into whether brands maintaining a particular political position is conducive or counterproductive to their brand identity. Common sense dictates that brands should stay as far away as possible from any controversial debates, as they risk alienating a significant proportion of the political ‘other’. That said, with the increase in politically aware, and at often times ‘loud’, consumer base, brands have increasingly found it more difficult to stay neutral especially when it comes to pressing topics such as the likes of racism and refugee crisis. Naturally then the obvious question that arises is : Should Brands be ‘In’ or ‘Out’ of the political debate?
While any business school will talk about CSR( Corporate Social Responsibility) on day 1, stressing on the role it plays in rooting a brand’s identity in society, when it comes to political questions like who to vote, brands run high risk of alienating potential/existing customers on the other side of the political aisle. For sure, brands might get cheap PR when they inject themselves into a political debate, but is it really worth alienating a significant portion of potential/existing customers who hold contrary stand on the matter? After all the cost and effort that a brand invests in forming a somewhat generally accepted brand identity, risking backlash from a significant chunk of society sounds like an unintelligent, and if not to be humble, outright stupid decision.
Take the recent case of AP1 television’s endorsement regarding the controversial MCC agreement. Knowing very well that the MCC agreement is controversial and has been divisive with most citizens clearly against it, AP1, regardless, decided to run a sponsored ad that was clearly made with the purpose of shifting general citizens’ view regarding the merit of the proposed agreement. I am not here to do a critical analysis on the pros and cons of the MCC deal. Whether the general population’s fears and misgivings on MCC arises from misunderstanding is a separate debate in and as of itself. What I am trying to get at instead is why did AP1 feel the need to risk losing on its brand value at the expense of one ad? Clearly, the network has multiple sponsors without any socio-political baggage. This short-sightedness has definitely put a dent on their network’s brand value, as can be seen from the massive backlash it is facing on social media platforms.
Globally as well, brands taking a political stand, has had negative effects on their brand value and identity. For example, tech giants’ banning of Donald Trump from their social media platform, alleging his role in the January 6 Capitol riot has resulted in decrease in trust, especially from the political right.
The gains that a brand can make by indulging in a contentious political debate, thus, is far outweighed by the possible fallout such positions can create to a brand’s identity. For sure, brands have to be socially conscious and have visibility in generally accepted campaigns/issues , for example: issues/events like reforestation, funding education costs, cleanliness program. This way, brands can gain plenty of social currency and earn social capital without risking alienating the ‘other’.
